Civil Law – Commercial Suit - Jurisdiction – Commercial Suit Refiled Before Civil Court – Misuse of Procedure – Plaint Returned – Plaintiffs withdrew earlier commercial suit without liberty and refiled same cause before civil court adding non-related parties – Court held this was a deliberate attempt to bypass Commercial Courts Act – Only parties receiving notices could seek relief – Civil court lacked jurisdiction – Impugned order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC set aside [Paras 3–11]. 
 
Misleading Citations – City Civil Judge Relied on Non-Existent SC Judgments – Serious Concern Raised – Learned Judge cited fictitious Supreme Court decisions to justify jurisdiction 
– Neither party referred such judgments – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate action against judicial officer [Paras 5, 10, 12]. 
 
Remand – Order VII Rule 10A CPC – Procedural Opportunity Granted – Plaint returned to plaintiffs but with liberty to file application under Order VII Rule 10A(2) – Direction to parties to appear before trial court for further proceedings – If no application filed, plaint to be returned [Para 11]. 
 
Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Plaint returned for lack of jurisdiction – Matter remitted for compliance under Order VII Rule 10A(2) CPC – Copy of order to be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice for inquiry into judicial conduct [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Criminal Law - Exemption from Personal Appearance – Routine Rejection of Section 317 CrPC Petitions – Held Arbitrary – Trial Court rejected exemption petition on grounds of repeated past defaults – High Court held that discretionary powers must be exercised judicially, especially when supported by justifiable medical reasons – Rejection without considering circumstances was arbitrary [Paras 1.4, 11–15]. 
 
Non-Bailable Warrant – Issuance Without Application of Mind – Set Aside – Appellant appeared same day after filing petition for exemption and sought recall of NBW – Trial Court declined by labeling conduct as dilatory – High Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Inder Mohan Goswami, Satender Kumar Antil, Sherif Ahmed) and quashed warrant for violating individual liberty under Article 21 [Paras 7–10, 22]. 
 
Discretion under CrPC – Must be Judicial, Not Mechanical – Courts Directed to Exercise Care – Reiterating Maneka Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, Court emphasized that absence due to illness must be considered liberally – Special Court’s repeated rejection of Section 317 and 70(2) petitions held contrary to binding principles [Paras 5–6, 11, 14, 21]. 
 
Recording of Evidence in Absence of Accused – Section 273 and Exceptions – Court Clarified Scope – Referencing Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Court noted trial can proceed in absence of accused under Sections 299, 317 CrPC and Section 16(5) of NIA Act – Trial not automatically vitiated due to absence if alternate procedural safeguards exist [Paras 16–20]. 
 
 Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned orders dated 30.01.2025 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 73 and 76 of 2025 set aside – Non-bailable warrant recalled – Appellant directed to strictly comply with bail conditions and cooperate with trial – Special Court cautioned against mechanical rejection of exemption petitions [Para 22]. 
 

Election Law – Defective Copy of Petition – No Fatal Defect – Application Rejected – Respondent claimed that absence of Oath Commissioner’s signatures on each page of Election Petition violated Section 81(3) – Court held: substantial compliance suffices; no prejudice shown; petition not liable to be dismissed on this ground [Paras 5–6].

Material Facts – Alleged Vagueness – Triable Issues Found – Rejection Denied – Respondent sought dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC alleging vague and unsubstantiated pleadings – Court held that allegations regarding non-disclosure of criminal cases, assets, improper affidavit format, polling irregularities, and counting flaws were specific and constitute triable issues – Rejection refused [Paras 14–24].

Corrupt Practice – Non-filing of Affidavit in Form 25 – Substantial Compliance Recognized – Opportunity Granted – Court noted that failure to file Form 25 affidavit with allegations of corrupt practice is a curable defect – Election Petitioner granted 3 weeks to file the affidavit – Non-filing may affect maintainability later [Paras 19–20, 28].

Necessary Party – Non-impleadment of Another Candidate – Not Fatal – Candidate Amita Biswal not made a party despite allegations – Court held that since no relief or corrupt practice alleged against her, she is not a necessary party under Section 82 of the R.P. Act – Pleadings regarding her valid [Para 22].

Irregularities in Polling and Counting – Detailed Allegations – Not Vague – Objections on non-supply of Form 17(C), improper handling of postal ballots, and mismatch in EVMs considered adequately pleaded – Held: These are factual issues to be examined during trial; cannot be struck out as frivolous [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed – Election Petition not dismissed – No pleadings struck out – Election Petitioner granted 3 weeks to file affidavit in Form 25, failing which Court may consider maintainability – Triable issues found across contested paragraphs [Para 28].
 

Regular Bail – Prolonged Custody – Clean Antecedents – Bail Granted – Petitioner in custody for 8 months, not involved in any other case – No specific injury attributed to him – Challan presented and charges framed; no prosecution witness examined so far – Held: Further incarceration without trial violates right to speedy justice under Article 21 – Bail granted [Paras 3–4].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Constitutional Protection Affirmed – Relying on Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 – Court reiterated that presumption of innocence is a foundational principle – Arrest during investigation must be justified; pretrial custody should not be punitive – Bail discretion to be exercised with a humane and just approach [Para 4].

Delay in Trial – No Witness Examined – Continued Custody Unwarranted – Despite 28 listed prosecution witnesses, none examined yet – Held: Keeping petitioner in jail for an uncertain period without trial infringes upon Article 21 – Emphasized need for timely disposal in line with Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Regular bail granted – Petitioner to be released on furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds – Court clarified that observations are not to influence merits of trial [Para 5].
 

Bail – Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA – Old Age and Infirmity – Bail Granted – Petitioner aged 86 years with multiple age-related ailments including cognitive impairment, dementia, and history of falls – Held: Petitioner falls within the category of “infirm” under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA – Not required to satisfy twin conditions under main provision – Bail granted [Paras 22–30]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Jail Facility Inadequate for Constant Monitoring – AIIMS Medical Board Report Considered – Despite not being acutely sick, the petitioner required round-the-clock monitoring, which could not be assured in jail – Held: Medical condition and advanced age necessitate release from custody [Paras 19, 27–28]. 
 
Triple Test – No Flight Risk, Witness Tampering or Evidence Destruction – Petitioner Released on Interim Bail Earlier Without Misuse – Held: Petitioner satisfies triple test for bail; ED’s allegations of influencing witnesses not substantiated at bail stage – Statement under Section 50 PMLA to be tested at trial [Paras 32–41]. 
 
Delay in Trial – Case Registered in 2018, Trial Yet to Commence – Massive Volume of Evidence and Witnesses – Held: Prolonged incarceration in face of slow trial offends Article 21 rights – Constitutional courts must intervene where trial delay makes bail refusal unjustified [Paras 42–46]. 
 
Judgment – Bail Granted – Constitutional Safeguards Prevail – The Court held petitioner entitled to bail under proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA due to agerelated infirmities and undue delay in trial – Bail granted with standard conditions [Paras 47–50]. 
 

Execution of Arbitral Award – Incomplete Award Filed – Execution Petition Rejected – Maintainability Questioned - Petitioner's execution petition seeking enforcement of MSMED Council award was rejected as the award originally filed lacked signatures of all Council members, rendering it incomplete under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act – Held: No executable award was before the court; rejection justified [Paras 4-6, 22, 31].

Successive Execution Petition – Res Judicata Applies – Prior Dismissal on Merits – Civil Revision Dismissed - The earlier application (E.A. No.11 of 2024) to restore a previous execution petition was dismissed on merits citing award’s lack of jurisdiction and invalidity – Court held this dismissal attained finality and bars maintainability of the subsequent execution petition for same award – Res judicata principles apply [Paras 29-30, 36-37, 41].

Award Without Jurisdiction – MSMED Council Exceeded Jurisdiction – Award Held Null and Void - Court reiterated earlier findings that Council lacked jurisdiction as the petitioner did not file a memorandum under Section 8(1) MSMED Act and the underlying contract was a works contract excluded from MSMED scope – Such illegality vitiates award and makes it inexecutable [Paras 28, 36].

Executing Court Power – Can Examine Maintainability Suo Motu – No Need for Objection by Judgment Debtor - Rejecting argument that executing court should register case and await objection, Court held that maintainability can be examined by the court itself when grounds are evident on record – Executing court not bound to proceed if award is found inexecutable [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Execution Petition Not Maintainable – High Court upheld rejection of execution petition as barred by earlier order and based on findings that the award lacked jurisdiction and was invalid – Held: No illegality in Special Judge’s order refusing to entertain execution of such award [Paras 44-45].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Disproportionate Assets – A1 Accused of Amassing Wealth 443% Over Known Income – Acquittal Set Aside – The trial court acquitted the accused holding that A1 and A2 had satisfactory explanations for their income and assets – High Court found that many sources claimed by defense were uncorroborated and erroneously accepted – Assets held by A2 were also wrongly excluded in assessing A1’s income [Paras 2-4, 10, 14.1].

Preliminary Enquiry – Not Mandatory Where Cognizable Offense Disclosed – Acquittal Based on Lack of Enquiry Set Aside – Trial court held FIR invalid due to lack of preliminary enquiry – High Court relying on CBI v. Hannah Vijayalakshmi held that when incriminating documents and cash were found during valid search in another case, separate FIR without preliminary enquiry was lawful [Paras 12.1.2–12.1.3].

Sanction for Prosecution – Additional Charge Officer Was Competent – Trial Court’s Finding Overruled – Trial court had held sanction invalid as it was granted by an officer holding “additional charge” – High Court ruled that as per Ex.P9 and departmental authorisation, PW1 was competent authority – Sanction was valid [Para 13].

Income Estimation – Trial Court Erred in Accepting Unsubstantiated Sources – Assets Miscalculated – The trial court accepted rental, agricultural, and loan proceeds without corroboration or legal proof – Several defense witnesses were related to A1/A2 – High Court held the lower court misapplied burden under Section 106 Evidence Act and ignored requirement for “satisfactory” explanation [Paras 14–15].

Burden of Proof – Accused Must Satisfactorily Account for Assets – Mere Plausibility Not Enough – High Court emphasized that under PC Act, explanation must be not only plausible but also satisfactory – Defense failed to meet this threshold despite submissions and documents – Reliance placed on Awadh Kishore Gupta, Jayalalitha, Soundirarasu cases [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents Convicted – Matter Remanded for Sentencing – High Court found acquittal perverse, based on misapplication of law and facts – Conviction recorded under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act against A1 and under Section 109 IPC against A2 – Matter remanded to trial court for hearing on sentence [Paras 43-44].
 

Temple Management – Succession to Committee of Management – Not Permissible under 1904 Agreement – Registered Trust Nama/Ikrar Nama of 1904 Governs – The temple management was originally vested with a Seven Member Committee constituted from six Thoks of 145 Sevayat families – Held: The agreement excludes legal succession to committee members; successors cannot inherit committee membership – Appointment must be made afresh as per Thok representation [Paras 23–25, 30–32, 38–
41]. 
 
Receivership – Role of Receiver Subordinate to Committee of Management – Receiver Not to Substitute Elected Committee – The 1924 compromise decree appointed a Receiver during deadlock – Held: Receiver’s role is secondary and temporary, meant to safeguard temple in absence of a duly constituted Committee – Continued reliance on 1924 compromise contrary to 1904 agreement [Paras 31–34, 39–41]. 
 
Judicial Overreach – Litigation Driven by Select Families – Abuse of Process – The petitioners and some respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of 1923 parties, excluded larger Sevayat community – Held: Petitioners’ claim of trusteeship unsustainable – All 734 families are equally bound by 1904 agreement; court deprecates misuse of judicial process to monopolize temple management [Paras 35–37, 40–41]. 
 
Binding Nature of 1904 Agreement – Governing Document for Temple Management – The court reaffirmed that the 1904 agreement is binding on all Pandas/Sevayats – Any appointment or management process must adhere strictly to its terms – Compromise decree of 1924 cannot override foundational governance framework [Paras 23–25, 38–41]. 
 
Judgment – Writ Petition Dismissed – Parties Directed to Follow 1904 Agreement – Court held that present litigation cannot override the original agreement of 1904 – All parties including petitioners and respondents must abide by its terms – Fresh Committee to be formed as per provisions laid down therein [Paras 41–42]. 
 

RERA Jurisdiction – Complaint maintainability against unregistered projects – Jurisdiction of RERA upheld - Petitioners contended that in the absence of registration under Section 3 of the RERA Act, the authority could not entertain complaints – Held that Section 31 vests jurisdiction in RERA to entertain complaints even against promoters of unregistered projects – Further held that registration is not a condition precedent for RERA's jurisdiction, especially when the statutory duties under Section 31, read with the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk), are wide enough to cover such promoters – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-28].

Alternative Remedy – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Writ Petition Not Maintainable - Court held that the proper remedy available to the petitioners was to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) – Writ jurisdiction refused, as statutory appeal is the efficacious remedy [Paras 24-28].

Promoter Definition – Government Bodies and Statutory Authorities are also Promoters under RERA – Provisions Explained - The Court clarified that State Government agencies like Improvement Trusts, Development Authorities (HSVP, GMADA, PUDA) are deemed promoters under Section 2(zk)(iii) of the Act – Therefore, complaints against such authorities are maintainable before RERA [Paras 6-10].

Retroactivity of RERA – Applicability to ongoing projects - Supreme Court in “Newtech Promoters” approved retroactive application - Held that projects without completion certificate prior to RERA enforcement are subject to the Act – Ongoing projects covered under RERA even if commenced before the Act [Paras 12].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court rejected the petition challenging RERA’s jurisdiction – Petitioners given liberty to prefer statutory appeal under Section 43(5) with possible benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings [Paras 28-29].